Taking forever! From where I sit, it seems Big John will be going against Obama for all the marbles. If the Dems choose a Hillary/Obama ticket (or vice-versa) it will present a unique moment in history, but not a winning one for the Democrats. McCain's choice for VP will be very important. While in good health, McCain needs a younger, stronger more Conservative running mate. Any suggestions? Romney?

Don't get me wrong I like and respect Romney a lot. He is accomplished and has integrity of character in which I don't see in hardly any of the other candidates. But ... It does strike me as ironic though when people refer to him as conservative. It wasn't that long ago he would have been thought of as a moderate. Republicans ain't the Party they used to be. Some day we can expect to hear the press refer to Hillary as a conservative. As Einstein once observed. "Its all about relativity."

Liberty''s Blog"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." John F. Kennedy

There seems to be a lot of bad blood between the Clinton/Obama camps recently. I don't see Hillary accepting the VP role. She has assumed she would be the next President for the last 8 years. I think Hillary is more "beatable" than Obama. However, as the election gets nearer I think Obama's extreme left wing beliefs will turn off some voters. I think many of his supporters just want a "change". Most people don't know he stands for.

Obama is a superb public speaker with limited experience. If he were to run as VP, that would give him 4 to 8 years to gather experience in the best way possible. That's all fine IF you're a Dem! I think of John McCain as a POW for all those years becoming President of the United States and I actually tear up. My God, that's just made to happen. As mentioned, a younger, considerably more Conservative VP running mate and we're in, IMHO.

While I have the utmost respect for Senator McCain's military service, I have very little respect for his role in Congress. As it stands right now, it flat does not matter who is elected to the position of POTUS, all three "major candidates" have proven records as domestic enemies to the Constitution of the United States of America. Change is the buzzword of the century, sadly we've seen very little change for the better, and are presently positioned for further steering in the wrong direction. Ultimately, the POTUS is of little consequence when one considers how very broken Congress happens to be.

During the first Clinton administration FFL holders were cut literally in half. We are just now, 8 years later getting back to the pre-Clinton days. We had more bans than we want to discuss and he was just getting started. Hillary would be worse and Obama comes from Illinois....just check out thier abuse to our 2 ammendment rights. If you think they are all the same think again. McCain may not have been your first choice but he is BY A MILE a better choice if you cherish your right to bear arms.

neal6325 wrote:McCain may not have been your first choice but he is BY A MILE a better choice if you cherish your right to bear arms.

My allegiance is to the entire Constitution, as I am sworn to support and defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic. McCain is no friend of the Constitution, harboring no regard for the 1st, 4th, or 5th amendments (at a minimum), he's in the same boat as both Democrats with regard to the 2nd - he is no champion of that right either.

An extraneous bit of trivia, but I hope it is on point, this being, after all, Texas.

Those get-togethers around our state were not, and are not, "caucuses." This is a word invented by Yankees, and for some weird reason our media in Texas have adopted this awful Yankee word, and it irritates the bejeezus out of me.

In Texas we have "Precinct Conventions," "County Conventions," and then a "State Convention." Then on to the "National Convention," wherever that might be.

Not caucuses. [Yankees]

Texas Pride, ya'll.

We're not going to reason people out of positions they haven't reasoned themselves into, to paraphrase Ben Franklin.

neal6325 wrote:McCain may not have been your first choice but he is BY A MILE a better choice if you cherish your right to bear arms.

My allegiance is to the entire Constitution, as I am sworn to support and defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic. McCain is no friend of the Constitution, harboring no regard for the 1st, 4th, or 5th amendments (at a minimum), he's in the same boat as both Democrats with regard to the 2nd - he is no champion of that right either.

I do not disagree with you having served my 8 years during the first Gulf War I took the same oath. While I do agree with you in regards to McCain.....are you suggesting that either Clinton or Obama would do less damage? Keep in mind they will be appointing Judges to the Supreme Court and I would much rather have McCain doing that then either DEM. We are one Justice away from losing our 2nd ammendement rights and you can bet our 1st, 4th and 5th will take a hit as well. The DEMs are already trying to shut up talk radio with their version of Title IX replacing gender guidlines with content guidelines. They feel all stations need to provide balanced coverage of all points of view. Why do you think the Liberal stations do not make money......hmmm......I guess a free marketplace that the country was founded upon does not matter to them and to heck with free speech......

In the end there are only three candidates with a chance to lead this country right now, of the three I am voting AGAINST Obama and Clinton by casting one for McCain. Were there a better option I would be all over it.

neal6325 wrote:McCain may not have been your first choice but he is BY A MILE a better choice if you cherish your right to bear arms.

My allegiance is to the entire Constitution, as I am sworn to support and defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic. McCain is no friend of the Constitution, harboring no regard for the 1st, 4th, or 5th amendments (at a minimum), he's in the same boat as both Democrats with regard to the 2nd - he is no champion of that right either.

I do not disagree with you having served my 8 years during the first Gulf War I took the same oath. While I do agree with you in regards to McCain.....are you suggesting that either Clinton or Obama would do less damage? Keep in mind they will be appointing Judges to the Supreme Court and I would much rather have McCain doing that then either DEM. We are one Justice away from losing our 2nd ammendement rights and you can bet our 1st, 4th and 5th will take a hit as well. The DEMs are already trying to shut up talk radio with their version of Title IX replacing gender guidlines with content guidelines. They feel all stations need to provide balanced coverage of all points of view. Why do you think the Liberal stations do not make money......hmmm......I guess a free marketplace that the country was founded upon does not matter to them and to heck with free speech......

In the end there are only three candidates with a chance to lead this country right now, of the three I am voting AGAINST Obama and Clinton by casting one for McCain. Were there a better option I would be all over it.

Honestly, I can not claim to know who will do more, or less damage. McCain probably has no clue what he's going to support vs what he's going to not support from one minute to the next. At the very least, that is what his time in Congress has proven. Looking at his record, I have no reason whatsoever to believe he will appoint individuals to the SCOTUS with any more regard for the Constitution than he himself demonstrates. In the end though, destroyed is destroyed. More, or less is purely relative. If I blow out an engine block with a burst of .50 API/T, the vehicle is destroyed. Ditto if I waste it with some 25mm HE. Right now the Constitution is the target, and we get the good fortune to elect the use of a MOAB (Clinton), a GBU12 (Obama), or a good old fashioned AN/M14 TH3 (McCain) for its destruction.

Honestly, I can not claim to know who will do more, or less damage. McCain probably has no clue what he's going to support vs what he's going to not support from one minute to the next. At the very least, that is what his time in Congress has proven. Looking at his record, I have no reason whatsoever to believe he will appoint individuals to the SCOTUS with any more regard for the Constitution than he himself demonstrates. In the end though, destroyed is destroyed. More, or less is purely relative. If I blow out an engine block with a burst of .50 API/T, the vehicle is destroyed. Ditto if I waste it with some 25mm HE. Right now the Constitution is the target, and we get the good fortune to elect the use of a MOAB (Clinton), a GBU12 (Obama), or a good old fashioned AN/M14 TH3 (McCain) for its destruction.

And that is where we differ......McCain may blow the engine....it can be rebuilt....Clinton will drive it off a cliff thus totaling it....Obama will blow the darn thing up and tell everyone the change was good. I guess my glass is half full. Like I said it is a vote against not a vote for....My first choice would have been much different but the general population and mainstream media made sure I only had the three to chose from.